White House sparks Noah Kahan backlash over unauthorised song use

Steelman: both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

Those defending the White House's use of popular music in its social media posts argue that such clips typically draw on platforms' own licensed audio libraries, the same tools available to any Instagram or TikTok user, rather than requiring a bespoke deal with each artist. They contend that once a song enters the cultural mainstream, it inevitably gets used by public figures and institutions across the political spectrum in ways songwriters cannot fully control, and that this is a long-standing feature of how popular music circulates rather than a novel abuse. They also point to the administration's willingness to disable the audio on the Instagram post once Kahan objected as evidence of a reasonably responsive process, not indifference to artists' wishes.

The case against

Artists and their supporters argue that pairing a specific song with footage of a president's policy visit, or more starkly with images of military strikes or immigration raids, creates an implied endorsement the artist never gave and may strongly oppose, conflating their creative work with a political message. They say this goes beyond routine licensing technicalities because it ties an artist's name, voice and years of built reputation to causes they find objectionable, causing real reputational and commercial harm. They further argue that the recurring pattern, with numerous high-profile musicians raising nearly identical objections in recent months, suggests a systemic disregard for artist consent rather than isolated oversight, and that basic courtesy and copyright practice would call for clearance before, not after, publication.